“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

It's no such admission. In fact it's the opposite, because if we thought the story didn't belong on HN, nothing would be easier than to let it sink without a trace.

I think the story belongs on HN because I know a little bit about the historical significance of Seymour Hersh and I think the appearance of this story is intellectually interesting. Maybe I'm the only commenter who feels that way, since most appear only to want to score points for their pre-existing political side, but it's our job to serve the intellectual interest of the larger audience, most of whom don't comment.

Re the question mark in titles, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34713747. This is a longstanding practice and has nothing to do with the topic.

Nothing I’ve argued about the quality of this submission — either publicly or privately — has been political. This is hearsay presented as fact. It is simply not intellectually honest source material.

It could be true! I’ve read lots of compelling narratives over the years. Many of them are wholly true, some have elements of the truth, some are fiction. But there’s no verifiably new information presented here; only a compelling narrative.

I really urge you to reconsider your stance but this is the last comment I’ll make on the topic.

But do you know a little bit about how shaky Seymour Hersh's later writing has been:

>… But his allegations are largely supported only by two sources, neither of whom has direct knowledge of what happened, both of whom are retired, and one of whom is anonymous. The story is riven with internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

>The story simply does not hold up to scrutiny — and, sadly, is in line with Hersh's recent turn away from the investigative reporting that made him famous into unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bi...

Dang, the question mark is not significant enough in my mind to present this story in a proper light. I think you should preface the title with "Theory:", "Hypothesis:", or some other disclaimer to immediately signify to the readers that it does not have substantial evidence to back up its extraordinary claims.

I respect and appreciate your opinions on all things HN related, but in this instance I think we need to make readers more urgently aware.

Thanks for standing by your principles on this one dang.

I was hoping there would be some discussion of the SONAR buoy remote detonation story - is it plausible (from a technical perspective)? Has it been done before?

I've put quotation marks up there now, as an alternative way of making the same point. That won't satisfy everyone but I hope the intention is clear!